Stylos is the blog of Jeff Riddle, a Reformed Baptist Pastor in North Garden, Virginia. The title "Stylos" is the Greek word for pillar. In 1 Timothy 3:15 Paul urges his readers to consider "how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar (stylos) and ground of the truth."

Saturday, February 03, 2018

Word Magazine 91: 2 Peter 3:10

In this episode I give an overview of textual disputes relating that have arisen related to this verse in recent years and offer some reflections why this textual matter is significant.My notes for this episode:

Since
the release of the NA 28, 2 Peter 3:10 has become one of the most contested
verses in the NT.

Though I
have made mention of 2 Peter 3:10 in several other WMs (see especially WM 27: Rejoinder: James White and 2
Peter 3:10), I wanted to do a WM that focuses
primarily on the text issues related to this verse. I did a blog post on this
back in September 19, 2014, but never did an audio version of that article, so I
will be drawing upon (reading) it in this edition.

The
background to this dispute is found in the fact that the NA editors, for the first
time, applied the so-called Coherence-based Genealogical Method (CBGM), which has
been used in the scholarly edition of the Bible known as the Editio Critica Maior (ECM), in the NA28 handbook edition of the modern critical Greek NT but only in the catholic
epistles.

The NA28
(2012) lists 33 verses in the catholic epistles in which changes were made from
the NA27 (1993) (see pp. 50*-51*).

The most
significant of these changes are found here in 2 Peter 3:10 and in Jude 5
(change from “Lord” to “Jesus”).

The traditional text (as reflected
in the KJV below) reads (I have put in bold the English words for which I have
supplied a transliteration of the Greek):

KJV 2
Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the
which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall
melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein
shall be burned up [kai ge kai ta en aute erga katakaesetai].”

The NA 27th edition
of the modern critical text (as reflected in the NIV and ESV below) reads
(again, I have put in bold the English words for which I have supplied a
transliteration in Greek):

NIV 2
Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will
disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the
earth and everything in it will be laid bare [kai ge kai ta en aute
erga eurethesetai].

ESV 2
Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens
will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and
dissolved, and the earth and the works
that are done on it will be exposed [kai ge kai ta en aute erga
eurethesetai].

The difference between the two
texts regards the final verb. Should it read, as the traditional text
does, that the works in the earth “shall be burned [katakaesetai, the
third person singular, future passive of katakaio, to burn up or to
consume]” or should it read, as the NA 27th does, that the
works of the earth “will be laid bare [eurethesetai, the third person
singular, future passive form of heurisko, to discover or to find]?

There is, however, yet another
major issue that emerges from this text which relates to the matter of
conjectural emendation. This issue, in fact, led to a change in the NA 28th edition
of the critical text.

The conjectural emendation is the
insertion of the negative particle ouch. The insertion
of ouch is listed in the critical apparatus of the NA27 (see
external evidence below) as a conjecture based on versional evidence. In
NA28, however, the conjecture moves from the apparatus to the text, so that a
potential translation based upon the NA 28 would read (translation based on
NIV; changes from NA 28 in bold and underlined):

2 Peter 3:10: But the day of
the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the
elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will not be
laid bare [kai ge kai ta en aute erga oucheurethesetai].

II. External Evidence:

Here I will draw on the critical
apparatus of both the NA27 and NA 28.

The traditional text is supported
by the following: A, 048, 33, 1739 (varia lectio), 2464 (with
minor differences), and the vast majority of extant Greek manuscripts. In
addition, this reading is also reflected in the following versions: The
Clementine Vulgate, the Harklean Syriac, and the Bohairic Coptic.

The NA 27 reading is supported by:
Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, K, P, 0156 (possibly), 323, 1241, 1739 (as one
alternative). It is also found in a few Philoxenian Syriac manuscripts
and a marginal reading in some Harklean Syriac manuscripts.

The NA 28 reading, which
conjectures the inclusion of the negative particle ouchis not, of
course, found in any extant Greek manuscripts. It is, however, found only
in the Sahidic Coptic, some manuscripts of the Philoxenian Syriac, and perhaps
in Dialect V of the Coptic (only probable coming from a citation from a
Father).

There are also several other
independent readings:

Eurethesetai luomena (will be found
dissolved): p72

Aphanisthesantai (will be ruined or
destroyed): C

katakaesontai (they will be
burned): 5, 1243, 1735, 2492 [note: This would apparently be a
grammatical error, however, since the neuter plural would not take a plural
verb.]

Additional Note: The NA27 also lists
a number of other conjectures that have been made by various scholars for
understanding the ending of v.10:

Bradschaw suggests that the
adjective arga [the neuter nominative plural adjective
from argos, -e, -on, meaning idle or useless) be inserted after the
worderga in v. 10 so that the ending would read: “the earth
and the things in it will be found useless.”

Other references in the NA 27
apparatus simply suggest a change for the final word:

rhysetai (to be saved or
delivered): Westcott/Hort

syrryesetai (to be swept away):
Naber

ekpyrothesetai (to be burn up):
Olivier

arthesetai (to be removed):
Mayor

krithesetai (to be
judged): E. Nestle

Metzger in his Textual
Commentary notes these and a few others (see pp. 705-706; citations
here and below are from the Corrected Edition, 1975).

III. Internal evidence:

Metzger observes: “In view of
the difficulty of extracting any acceptable sense from the passage, it is not
strange that copyists and translators introduced a variety of modifications”
(p. 706).

It is not altogether clear,
however, why the traditional text would not be considered just as legitimate as
the others. In fact, it seems likely from the alternative suggestions
that they are theologically motivated, attempting to offer an alternative to a
reading suggesting that the earth will be burned or destroyed at the end of the
ages.

IV. Conclusion:

The traditional text rendering has
ancient support. It was the reading eventually adopted by the
majority. Even though the NA27 reading is supported by the twin
heavyweight of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, Metzger gives it only a “D” rating and
despairs that none of the existing readings “seems to be original” (p. 705).

The NA 28 editors simply followed
Metzger’s trajectory by offering a conjecturally emended reading which inserts
the negative particle ouch, even though it is found in no extant
Greek manuscripts and only weakly attested in the versional witnesses.

Some
Further reflections:

1.On theological factors:

The abandonment of the traditional
reading in the 19th century was primarily based upon adherence to
the uncials (Aleph and B). One wonders, however, if it did not also have
something to do with lack of comfort with the language of fiery destruction and
judgment.

2.On conjectural emendation:

This variant demonstrates that the
current modern critical editors are willing to make conjectural emendations to
supply what they believe to be the best readings. They are now guided by the
CBGM and not by adherence to the uncials (or even the papyri, for that matter).

As I have pointed out before: It
would be hypocritical to reject TR readings (like the CJ) simply based on weak
ms. attestation if one has adopted a method that allows for conjectured
readings based on no extant ms. evidence.

3.On the modern critical text(s) of the NT:

One interesting phenomenon that
seems to be taking place on a limited level is the emergence of multiple modern
critical texts of the NT.

With the NA 26 (1979) there began
a unified modern critical text, as the text (though not the apparatus) was
brought into agreement with the UBS edition, both being under the same
editorial control.

This period of unity (extending
from 1979-2012) may be fracturing. There is no available the Greek NT SBL
edition (2010) edited by Michael W. Holmes and, more recently, the THGNT
(2017). The latter notably does not follow the CBGM reading at 2 Peter 3:10.

4.Implications for translations:

No modern English translation of
which I am aware has chosen, as yet, to adopt the NA28 reading in 2 Peter 3:10
with its conjectured “not.”

I think the first major
translation to do so will likely be the “new” NRSV, which is being revised
under the oversight of the SBL (see this post).

Finally:

Textual study of this single verse
makes clear the contrast between the confessional view of text and the modern
critical view. In the former there is textual stability and in the latter there
is constant instability.

Garnet Howard Milne in the
conclusion to Has the Bible been kept
pure? (2017) makes clear that the problem is one of epistemology:

Although
these textual critics and their supporters will proclaim they are fairly confident
that they possess a mostly accurate text, their own presuppositions mean that
they can never acquire complete certainty. Who knows what other ancient
manuscripts might be located in the Jordanian desert which will now need to be
added to the mix? (p. 301).